One way to help build that cultural momentum for repeal is to buy a tasteful, restrained “Repeal Obamacare” shirt for yourself or a friend. I’m trying to do my part by designing several (available at Repeal Obamacare Now through Cafe Press and Repeal Obamacare Now through Zazzle). The latest (in order of my favorites):

Inspired by their attempt to “reclaim” the term, this shirt reclaims it back again, with the simple message “I (un-heart) Obamacare”—or “I (un-like) Obamacare”, or “I (stop) Obamacare”, or however you’d care to read it. (The second word is that loopy Obama-campaign marketing logo with a circle and line through it.) It’s subtle enough that liberals may not even realize what they just saw.

I can understand why the Democrats would want to keep the exchange rates private before the election. They are counting on hoodwinking the American public again — vote first, find out what’s in the bill later.

Back in 2011, I argued that Obamacare would lead employers to drop existing health insurance coverage and throw employees onto the mercies of the exchanges. (See this post and links therein.) Liberals, including no less than Paul Krugman, denied this. But it’s looking like it’s happening.

My wife has epilepsy and sees a specialist in epilepsy at the University of New Mexico medical center. Because of the ACA payment to doctors have decreased. This in turn has resulted in the Medical center deciding to close the epilepsy clinic due to financial reasons. This will no doubt result in a poorer quality of care for many people with epilepsy.

22 Responses to “Top Five New ‘Repeal Obamacare’ Shirts: Puns, Parodies, and More”

On the subject of Walmart, can we raise the minimum wage already? The Walton family’s combined worth is north of 100 billion dollars (100 billion!), and they pay a vast number of their workers less than 10 dollars an hour (less than 10 dollars an hour!). Why should I, as a taxpayer, have to subsidize Walmart’s workers (who inevitably rely on government benefits to make ends meet), when the Waltons are sitting on over 100 billion dollars. I think about this kind of stuff, and wonder how anyone in their sane mind could vote for a candidate opposed to a minimum wage hike.

If the minimum wage had been $15 an hour, the employer would have had to pay almost twice as much for the same amount of work. The job probably would not have been there for me. I would have been unemployed for those months. I am glad that people like you didn’t succeed in raising the minimum wage and taking that job away from me. I’m trying to make sure you don’t do it to anyone else, either.

Why would the job not have been available to you? As I understand it, employers hire based on need. Therefore, if an employer has a need for a certain number of employees, it will hire those employees. If it foregoes hiring them, it will damage its business operations much more than if it has to pay employees an extra seven dollars an hour. All I am asking is those employers share their profits in a way such that I don’t have to subsidize those profits.

Also, if employees are making more money, they will pump more money into the economy, thereby creating more jobs. (A vast majority of our GDP consists of consumer spending).

In short, the economic arguments against the minimum wage increase are fooey. Morally, as well, the issue is a no-brainer. Let’s do this!

I never know whether you’re serious about wanting to have an actual discussion, but assuming you are this time:

“As I understand it, employers hire based on need. Therefore, if an employer has a need for a certain number of employees, it will hire those employees.”

Well, no. No other kind of economic transactions work like that. Normally, people buy more of something if it costs less, and less of something if it costs more. Liberals are perfectly able to acknowledge this truth when it suits their policies—e.g., we all agree that if you tax polluting more, people will do less of it. That’s why liberals propose cap-and-trade schemes.

Let’s say I want a donut this morning. I’ll buy it if it costs a dollar, but not if it costs ten dollars.

Let’s say I own a business and want to buy a computer to become more productive. Maybe I’ll buy it if it costs $500, but not if it costs $5,000.

Labor is subject to the same laws of supply and demand. An employer might like to hire more people, but it’s not worth an infinite amount of money to him. Maybe one employee’s work is worth $10 an hour to the employer, but not $50. What’s your theory, that the employer would pay $500/hour for that employee if that were what it would cost? On your logic, why shouldn’t we raise the minimum wage to $500 an hour? Why are you being so stingy and uncaring by only demanding we raise it to $15 an hour?

“Also, if employees are making more money, they will pump more money into the economy, thereby creating more jobs.”

In both cases, the problem with your logic can be understood as imagining only one side of an equation. You successfully imagine one side; so it doesn’t occur to you that you might be suffering from a failure of imagination, even though there’s a gaping hole where the rest of your conceptual picture should be.

Here, you say that if the employee were paid more—all other things being equal—he would spend more and the economy would be better. I agree! That is, I agree, all other things being equal. The problem is that all other things won’t be equal. On the other side of the equation: How much will it cost the business to be able to pay that much more? How much less productive will the business be? (How much less money will the employer have in his pocket and how much less consumer spending will he do, if you want to think of it that way?) How much less strong will the economy be as a result? You haven’t even considered these questions. To prove your point, you would have to examine both sides of the equation, weigh them against each other, and show that the benefits outweighed the costs. Not only have you not even thought about it; I’ll save you the trouble and tell you that you cannot prove that. It’s impossible. Instead, the lesson is that you (and the rest of liberalism) should cease such epistemological arrogance.

“All I am asking is those employers share their profits in a way such that I don’t have to subsidize those profits.”

You can’t insist on having a welfare state and then try to use its existence as an excuse to interfere further in people’s affairs. In other words, you can’t create a problem and then use that problem as an excuse to enact further “solutions”. Your argument would then resemble the classic Demotivational poster:

As to the economic aspect of minimum wage reform, let’s use a concrete example. The Waltons are worth over 100 billion dollars. They rely on Walmart employees to accumulate that vast wealth, yet pay a majority of those workers less than 10 dollars an hour, despite the fact that those workers’ labor is worth far more than that. So, for example, if every Walmart employee were to go on strike tomorrow demanding 15 dollars an hour, the Waltons would pay it! Why? Because they know that those workers are key cogs to their multi-billion dollar enterprise. You see, minimum wage laws (and to a large extent union laws) are about bargaining power. The fact that the Waltons pay their workers less than 10 dollars an hour has nothing to do with their value to the company, and everything to do with the parties’ relative bargaining positions. That you fail to see this is startling. A minimum wage increase is nothing more than the government intervening to level the playing field.

As to the moral side, I’m sick of subsidizing greedy billionaires. Raise the minimum wage now.

How fortunate that we have the unique gift of your wisdom to show us at what exact dollar amount the interests balance and the playing field becomes “level”. No need to show your work, we’ll just appoint you our beneficent dictator. Help yourself to as much of other people’s money as you need to establish cosmic justice.

Let’s tack a few numbers on this debate. I’ll be working with gross aggregates and won’t get into dynamics, but it’s a good starting point.

Walmart’s 2013 net earnings were $17 billion. They have 2.1 million employees worldwide. That figures out to about $8,100 per employee. Assuming that the average Walmart employee works 30 hours per week, giving each employee a $5.19/hr raise would completely wipe out Walmart’s net earnings, other things equal.

Of course, “other things” are never equal. A more complete analysis would require going beyond the first iteration of economic logic, but I’m too lazy to attempt that right now. I just wanted to rebut the assertion that “those workers’ labor is worth far more than [their current compensation].”

By the way, are employers morally obliged to pay employees what their labor is “worth”? In other words, is it immoral for an employer to make a profit?

Ok, so your concern (and presumably Walmart’s), is that raising the minimum wage too much will completely wipe out its profits. But raising the minimum wage here would not apply to Walmart employees in other countries, and it would not apply to employees already making more than the increased minimum wage. Plus, there is another sensible cost-cutting measure that could help in this situation: pay slightly less to top level executives and slightly more to hourly employees! In other words, raising the minimum wage would not wipe out Walmart’s net earnings. The company would still earn billions, just not as many billions, which is a much fairer result than me and you subsidizing the richest family in America.

“Ok, so your concern…is that raising the minimum wage too much will completely wipe out its profits.”

Not really. As I mentioned, I was working with gross aggregates and didn’t get into dynamics. The real-world consequences of a $15/hr minimum wage would probably be reduced employment and higher prices for consumer goods. It’s possible that this move would render Walmart’s business model inviable, but they’d probably adapt. Believe it or not, I’m not too worried about Walmart’s bottom line. It’s the nature of the inevitable adaptation (on the part of Walmart and most other U.S. employers), and its effects on the nation as a whole that I’m concered about.

“But raising the minimum wage here would not apply to Walmart employees in other countries”

True that, only about half of Walmart’s 2.1 million employees work in the U.S. That’s still pretty significant.

“…pay slightly less to top level executives and slightly more to hourly employees!”

Let’s bust out some numbers again. Walmart’s “key executive compensation” totaled $77 million in 2014. Let’s assume they cut that total in half and distribute the savings among their U.S. employees–that’s about $38 per year per employee. (I’m vaguely reminded of the folks who spout that we can pay off the national debt by paying Congress less.)

“The company would still earn billions, just not as many billions, which is a much fairer result…”

Ah yes, “fairness,” the ultimate objective, to be adjudicated by enlightened statists and to which overall well-being needs to be sacrificed. Besides, the entirely forseeable negative consequences of this-or-that redistributive policy can be dismissed with a wave of the hand and a reiteration of your good intentions. Don’t forget to impugn the motives of anyone who voices concerns.

Yes, and their success is entirely attributable to their high minimum wage and welfare state. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

By the way, on an unrelated topic, per capita cigarette consumption in Japan is about double that of the U.S., and they have the longest life expectancy in the world. Maybe if Americans start smoking more, we’ll live longer.

I’m no fan of Obamacare either, but I think that ONE C.A.R.E. shirt is a better design than all the others. It’s funny, it’s legible and bold. The others are too hard to read and the small fonts muddle the message. Remember me? I’m still blogging!

The minimum wage is a complex issue, balancing fairness and economic reality. Early last year, I did an amateur’s study showing the effects of min. wage increases large and small vs. no increases over long periods from 1970-on.

It seems that the economy, as expressed by unemployment rate (underemployment would have been better, but is harder to find), can handle periodic and gradual increases in the minimum wage. But trouble for the worker arises when sudden jumps in the min. wage are made to correct for a long period with no adjustments.

The likely effects of a minimum wage hike also depend on prevailing macroeconomic conditions. A modest minimum wage hike coincident with a robust economic expansion should not be expected to negatively impact employment, but a hike during (or immediately preceding) a recession or sluggish expansion is likely to cost a lot of jobs.

In my own beloved state of North Dakota, a minimum wage hike to $10/hr would have have practically no negative impact on employment. It fact, it would have hardly any impact of any kind at all…hardly anybody’s paid less than that anyway! All the fast food joints up and down the main commercial stretches of Bismarck are advertising their starting wages at around $12-$15/hr.